1.1 Statement of Importance
Due to their geographical isolation and low population densities, Arctic and sub-Arctic environments are often neglected in terms of the sustainable management of their natural resources and rural development activities for local communities. The resource reserves discovered in the Arctic have resulted in the high potential for oil and gas, mining, and hydroelectricity industries to develop over a relatively short period of time (Chance and Andreeva 1995). The danger is that these resources require destructive extraction in an area with a sensitive ecosystem that, over the course of time, has not been subject to much change (Chance and Andreeva 1995). The concern is twofold: that the natural environment will not be resilient enough to withstand these rapid changes and that the local people will lose their traditional way of life, which is closely tied to the land.
In order to manage the environmental and socioeconomic concerns associated with rapid development of industry, several environmental management tools have been employed across the world; the most prominent being environmental impact assessments (EIAs). EIAs are a valuable planning-stage tool for assessing and minimizing the impacts of development projects with the potential to significantly alter the surrounding environment (Hanna 2009).
While originally focusing on the ecological environment, they now include impacts to the socioeconomic and cultural environments as well.
A crucial aspect of EIAs is public participation. Community involvement has historically been beneficial in identifying issues associated with and encouraging local support of large-scale projects (Sinclair and Diduck 2009). As a more specialized form of this community involvement, many EIA processes, especially in post-colonial countries, have separated consultation with indigenous communities from public participation in general. As was outlined internationally in the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention No. 169, The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, indigenous communities have unique concerns associated with their connection to the land and their rights as indigenous peoples (ILO 1989).
In addition to identifying environmental components of concern, the traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) of indigenous peoples can be used to evaluate and describe the existing environmental setting of a project (Menzies and Butler 2006). The long term observational data of indigenous peoples can be used in conjunction with western scientific data to provide
a clearer understanding of the local environment and the potential impacts of a large-scale project (Menzies and Butler 2006). The incorporation of TEK and addressing the concerns of indigenous peoples can reduce the potential negative impacts of development (Sinclair and Diduck 2009). With the pressing issue of land claims, involving local indigenous communities in the management of natural resources is becoming ever more important in garnering local support and international acceptance of large-scale development projects (Slocombe et al.
2009).
1.2 Defining the Scope
This thesis will look at how Finland and Canada incorporate consultation with indigenous peoples into their EIA processes. Finland and Canada provide a valuable point of comparison because, although they have similar physical environments, the social environment and historical timeframes are very different. Finland has a relatively old history with the indigenous Sámi people cohabitating with Finns for a long time (Pennanen and Näkkäläjärvi 2000). However, it has a relatively recent history with Finland’s Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures only being introduced in 1994 to comply with European Union regulations prior to Finland becoming a member state. In contrast, Canada was only formed in 1867, so it has a recent colonial history with the indigenous people living within its borders.
On the other hand, Ontario has had a provincial Environmental Assessment Act since 1975 and since 1984 the federal process was guided by a Cabinet order, although the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act was only formalized in 1995 (Doyle and Sadler 1996).
As EIA legislation is usually jurisdiction-specific, it is valuable to further narrow down the regions being compared. All of Finland falls under the Act on Environmental Impact Assessment Procedures, which was derived from European Union’s (EU) EIA Directive.
Consequently, Finland will be used as an example of a country with relatively new EIA legislation and international checks deriving from operations of the EU. On the other hand, Canada is governed by federal, provincial, and territorial EIA legislation so narrowing the analysis down to a specific jurisdiction helps to focus a complicated topic. Labrador was chosen as the jurisdiction because of similarities in the physical landscape and the traditional livelihoods of indigenous peoples when compared to Finland. The Newfoundland and Labrador’s Environmental Protection Act will be the main focus of the Canadian case study.
However, the future of Aboriginal participation, in light of the 2012 changes made to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, will also be assessed. Finnish and Canadian EIA legislation will be compared with guidelines for consultation with indigenous peoples, as set
out in the ILO Convention No. 169 to provide an international point of comparison for both countries (ILO 1989). This legislation will be further analysed in terms of how well it meets the characteristics of collaborative environmental management (CEM) outlined in the scientific literature.
While many of the concepts used in this thesis can be generally applied to any local cohesive community, indigenous peoples are often well-organized and internationally supported as unique rights-holders, which make them an easily defined cohesive community. Although the Sámi people in Lapland, Finland can be divided into several groups, they have a collective government and will be treated as a cohesive group for the purposes of this research. To provide a realistic point of comparison, the Innu were chosen in Labrador, Canada. These indigenous peoples were chosen because of similarities in their sub-Arctic environments and in their traditional livelihoods, most notably the significance of Rangifer tarandus, L. in the form of reindeer herding and caribou hunting. However, it is important to note that one of the major differences between Lapland and Labrador, related to this topic, is the number of different indigenous peoples whose traditional territory is located in these two areas. Within the borders of Labrador are not just the Innu, but also Inuit and Métis peoples. All three of these groups have different rights under federal legislation with the Innu being legally categorized as “Indians” or First Nations. It is important to keep in mind this distinction between the regions under analysis.
There is much political debate surrounding the “politically correct” terms to use for native peoples, so the use of these terms throughout this paper warrants explanation. Where at all possible the proper name will be used for individual groups, but it is important to clarify what is meant by each of the additional collective nouns used in this paper. In Canada, the term
“Aboriginal peoples” is a legal term used to describe Indians (now commonly referred to as First Nations, though many legal documents still reference Indians), Inuit and Métis (Graben 2010). When referring to native peoples in general or both the Innu and the Sámi together, the term “indigenous peoples” will be used as it is more common in an international context.
1.3 Summary of Existing Literature
The concept of involving local communities in the management of natural resources is not a new one. After dropping out of a favour for a more top down approach of management, CEM or co-management was reintroduced in the 1970s (Pinkerton 2003). This method advocates that incorporating the traditional or local knowledge and addressing the concerns of local communities will make for more effective environmental management (Pinkerton 2003). It is
not specific to indigenous communities, but the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples has been suggested as valuable to provide a long-term context not seen in western scientific research (Menzies and Butler 2006). Critics of this approach claim CEM does not remedy the downfalls of traditional resource management and may cause more confusion, particularly if all groups involved are held on equal footing to western science (Luke 2002). On the other hand, CEM is also criticized for defaulting to western science if there is a discrepancy between local knowledge and scientific understanding (Brook et al. 2006).
Indigenous peoples’ right to be consulted regarding the management of natural resources has become a focal point of research. The Berger decision in 1977 sparked the inclusion of TEK into environmental impact statements in Canada. Internationally, support for the rights of indigenous peoples was discussed formally with the ILO Convention No. 169 in 1989 (ILO 1989). Much of the literature on indigenous peoples’ rights mentions this convention, although several prominent countries, including Canada and Finland, have yet to ratify it.
Another relevant international agreement came out of the Ottawa Declaration in 1996. The Ottawa Declaration came out of a meeting between Arctic nations, and established the Arctic Council as a forum to discuss issues affecting the Arctic (Ottawa Declaration 1996). It specifically recognizes “the traditional knowledge of the indigenous people of the Arctic and their communities and [takes] note of its importance and that of Arctic science and research to the collective understanding of the circumpolar Arctic” (Ottawa Declaration 1996).
There has not been a lot of research specifically on Sámi participation in EIAs, but existing research, predominately from Norway and Sweden, has looked at the use of Sámi TEK. Most of the research involving Sámi participation in natural resource management has focused on the management of reindeer herds and finding a balance between pastoralism, conservation, and resource use. In terms of research into EIAs and the Sámi, the recent focus has been collaborative research between the three Nordic countries focusing on trans-boundary EIAs.
In 1991, the Espoo Convention on Environmental Impact Assessments in a Trans-Boundary Context was held in Finland with Finland being the first Nordic country to ratify the agreement in 2005.
In Canada, the literature on Aboriginal peoples’ involvement in EIAs has mainly focused on British Columbia and Nova Scotia. Due to differences in provincial EIA legislation and in the historical relationship between Aboriginal people and the government across Canada, it is difficult to make direct comparisons between provinces. However, at a federal level the EIA legislation and the rights of Aboriginal people is consistent across the country, which allows
for some comparison as long as context is taken into consideration. There has been minimal research focused specifically on the Innu in Labrador, but some exists speaking to the TEK held by the Innu and traditional livelihoods still practiced.
No literature was found that specifically compared indigenous peoples’ involvement in EIAs between Labrador and Finland. However, past comparisons have been made on this topic between Canada in general and other Nordic countries. This indicates that such a comparison would add value to the existing literature on these two parts of the world.
1.4 Justification
With the increased development in sensitive Arctic and sub-Arctic ecosystems, EIAs are becoming increasingly important in the planning stages of projects with the potential to have significant impacts on the environment. EIA literature has indicated that public participation, including consultation with indigenous peoples, plays an extremely important role in collecting information (i.e. TEK) to aid decision-making, identifying stakeholders, and identifying concerns associated with the project (Sinclair and Diduck 2009). Despite the important role of public participation in projects achieving their maximum potential, this is often the most heavily criticized aspect of EIAs (Booth and Skelton 2011).
The only consensus in the literature appears to be that there is no single answer to how natural resources should be managed. The success of the management strategy depends on the context in which it is applied and the mindsets of those involved. Consequently, it is important to assess CEM against each individual context. This research will look at collaboration or public participation as a potential solution to some management problems and, by comparing the approach taken in different countries, will explore the context in which collaboration will prove valuable.
As was outlined in section 1.3, there has been little research into comparing the approaches of Canada and Finland in consulting indigenous peoples throughout the EIA process. The similar cross-national concerns associated with Arctic environments and the traditional livelihoods of indigenous groups indicate that such a comparison could be valuable at revealing potential areas where these two countries can learn from each other. Increasing international recognition of the rights of indigenous people to consultation has added a legal incentive to ensure that consultation efforts are up to an international standard. As Finland is a leader in trans-boundary EIAs and Canada was one of the first Arctic nations to adopt an EIA policy, such a comparison adds further value to the foundation of EIA literature.
1.5 Objectives
This study aims to identify areas of indigenous peoples’ consultation and participation in the EIA process where Canada and Finland can learn from each other to ensure sustainable levels of development take place in the Arctic and sub-Arctic.
1.6 Research Questions
1) How does EIA legislation in Lapland, Finland and Labrador, Canada align with international guidelines on consultation as outlined in the ILO Convention No. 169?
2) How does EIA legislation in Lapland, Finland and Labrador, Canada align with the characteristics of successful CEM theoretical framework found in academic literature?
1.7 Research Limitations
One limitation of this research is the use of terminology. Definitions of terms, such as involvement, participation, consultation, and collaboration, can often overlap in meaning and have different meanings to different people or groups. The terms used in this study will be explained throughout the paper, along with a justification for why the definition was chosen.
Similarly, what defines an indigenous community or person is not as straightforward as it may superficially seem. While, for ease of assessment, the legal and political definitions of the Sámi and Innu communities were chosen, it is important to note that this definition may exclude people who identify as Sámi or Innu, but are not recognized as such by their respective countries. Consequently, what defines each of these indigenous communities and who is considered a member may vary in the future.
It is important to note that this study looks at two small regions of two countries and extrapolating the findings to a more general or international context should be undertaken with consideration of this fact. Additional limitations of this study will be discussed throughout the research paper, as they arise.
1.8 Thesis Structure
The following chapter will summarize the literature on EIAs, public participation, TEK and relevant international agreements. It will also provide a background on the physical environments, indigenous peoples, history, politics and cultural attitudes towards environmental management in Finland and Canada. Chapter 3 describes the methods used for data collection and analysis, including the limitations of the content analysis method. Chapter 4 will provide an overview of the theoretical framework used in the analysis of the data
collected. The results found through the analysis of four pieces of regional and domestic legislation follow in Chapters 5. Once the results of the data collected in each method have been clearly outlined, Chapter 6 will include discussion and careful analysis of how the legislation is interconnected with literature on the subject and relate it back to the research questions. Chapter 7 will provide recommendations on where Canada and Finland can learn from one another, identify limitations and outline the potential for future research to add to this balance of knowledge. Finally, the conclusion will summarize the findings of this research